Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Ohio St. 2d 238

Bland v. Holden

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1970

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1970-03-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““* * * if an accused is charged with crimes the conviction for which would result in long incarceration, with little hope of early release or probation, the incentive to abscond is greater and the amount must be such as to discourage the accused from absconding.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including In re DeFronzo

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1970-03-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. Hughes (1986), Jenkins v. Billy (1989)

64 state decisions

230197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. Petitioner’s contention is that he is being held under excessive bail, contrary to the provisions of Section 9 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

¶2Petitioner is under indictment on 17 counts as follows: five counts of rape, five counts of armed robbery, five counts of breaking and entering, one count of burglary of an inhabited dwelling and one count of malicious entry. The five counts of rape, robbery and breaking and entering all arose out of the same five transactions. His bail is set at $45,000.

¶3The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at his trial. The amount of bail is largely within the sound discretion of the court. The court may consider the character and past record of the accused, the seriousness of and the number of crimes for which he is charged and the penalties attached thereto. Annotation, 72 A. L. R. 801. If the penalty is not great, the accused may have no incentive to jump bail. On the other hand, if an accused is charged with crimes the conviction for which would result in long incarceration, with little hope of early release or probation, the incentive to abscond is greater and the amount must be such as to discourage the accused from absconding.

¶4In the instant case, petitioner is charged with crimes for which, upon conviction, he has no chance of probation and in which the penalty is life imprisonment or long periods of incarceration. Therefore, it does not appear that the bail is excessive.

¶5The writ of habeas corpus is denied and the petitioner is remanded to custody.

¶6Petitioner remanded to custody.

Taft, O. J., Leach, O’Neill, Schneideb, Hebbebt, Duncah and Cobeigah, JJ., concur.Leach, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Matthias, J.
/21/ohiost2d/238 · .json · Public domain